Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] What needs to be checked for address validation (#3327)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Sun, 16 February 2020 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D86E120091 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:10:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jf6Axn58I2J5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:10:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0EF12008A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:10:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60724960224 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:10:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1581894653; bh=ThajqVerv9m6+uzaRTGBGdCF82j1n17vxwFwEiWQhls=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=sk9Hg/UNJ42tjgLG9UevX3gx2QPSS9MpaO0hXQVpntEU7MH5wg7spRzKw+myP81oa iAy3OsBp/+INqFIoWSrRF6/fVUuHuT/MmAZ6aVAsmwt609yuV2FQDiiEUbVRpYN0Iv /ZXA5+LPIC/od5gu8V4LbPC91DODG+fdKUuiHcIg=
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:10:53 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6PY3ZPQCPQB5BZRKF4K37H3EVBNHHCBFKYSE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3327/review/359437208@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3327@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3327@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] What needs to be checked for address validation (#3327)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e49cbfd51bad_7e473fa681ecd968101168"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/_AsyE1m4FrkTWQCrqcwGb7RK5z0>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 23:10:55 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1834,10 +1834,9 @@ SHOULD include information that allows the server to verify that the source IP
 address and port in client packets remains constant.
 
 Servers might use tokens from NEW_TOKEN in deciding not to send a Retry packet,
-even if the client address has changed.  A token that was provided in
-NEW_TOKEN cannot be used for address validation if the client address is not the
-same, though servers MAY allow for the possibility of changes arising from new
-mappings at a NAT.
+even if the client address has changed. Tokens sent in NEW_TOKEN frames SHOULD
+include information that allows the server to verify if the client address is
+stable, but might allow for different NAT bindings or ephemeral port selection.

== on IP and port would be one example, but the emphemeral port example clearly leads to just IP == IP.

Should we just say "IP MUST be the same" instead?  That's not good always (see CGNAT) and I want to avoid creating the impression that this is sufficient, even if it might be sufficient.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3327#discussion_r379941990